If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Different agencies have different policies.
San Bernardino County (largest county in the US) requires that all ink be covered. They make allowances for hot weather and allow short sleeves only if the ink can be covered by bandages or some other cover.

I am fairly tatted, so my opinion is skewed. I would say as a rule of thumb in the US, most people do not care. However, if it was an offensive tattoo, or a symbol of something nasty or hateful, I can see the merit to covering it.

[B]You are disoriented. Blackness swims toward you like a school of eels who have just seen something that eels like a lot.[/B]

It depends on the dept. My buddy got his Dads badge number tattooed on his forearm because he was killed in the line of duty. He kinda wishes that he didnt get it in such a visible place because alot of agencies don't allow visible tattoos. Luckily he works at an agency where tattoos can be displayed if they are in good taste. I however work for an agency where no visible tattoos are allowed(*not a cop work in dispatch/911 center).

How can they realistically ban them. If a cop has them already, does he have to get it removed? If a guy has tats is he automatically rejected from joining the police force? A lots of my military mates have their blood type tattooed on their bodies, for example. Would that prevent them doing law enforcement after leaving the army?

I've seen on tv cops in the US visibly show them but here in oz visible tatts on cops have just been banned.

Some people are quick to judge (stereotype) others based on appearance, so tattoos are a factor. On one end of the spectrum is the super clean cut person that would never wear a tattoo, where the other extreme is a thieving gang where tattoos are compulsory. I am not implying anything by that statement other than saying just the sight of a tattoo can create an emotional response with some members of the public, particularly those who travel in social circles where tattoos are not acceptable. So I can understand why a police department may want to their officers to cover them while on active duty so they don't become a distraction or otherwise factor into their job while interacting with the general public on enforcement matters.

IMO its an issue akin to political correctness, where a small percentage of tattoos might actually be offensive, so its easier to ban them all instead of trying to judge which ones are or are not.

The main difference between those of us with tats and those without tats is that those of us with tats don't really care if you don't have tats. ;)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

The same could be said for SO many aspects of society.

Originally Posted by legion

How can they realistically ban them. If a cop has them already, does he have to get it removed? If a guy has tats is he automatically rejected from joining the police force? A lots of my military mates have their blood type tattooed on their bodies, for example. Would that prevent them doing law enforcement after leaving the army?

Like I said, in my area, most agencies simply require that they be covered... normally a long sleeved shirt is going to take care of that.
In some areas, ALL city/county employees are prohibited from having visible ink, in others, such as my city, it's only an issue for the PD. We've got guys in Public Works that are completely sleeved out, and though long sleeved uniforms are an option, they opt for SS and it's not a problem.

But over in San Bernardino County, no employee is allowed to have visible ink. If it can't be covered by long sleeves, then it must be covered by a bandage or something else.
I would imagine a face/neck tat would knock a person down a few notches on the interview ladder during the hiring process.... it's not like we have a shortage of people looking for work.

When I was in the USAF (80s and 90s), any tats had to be covered by every uniform combination, which basically meant you could have tats everywhere except for (a) from the collarbone up and (b) from the elbow down.

That seemed like a nice, easy to understand rule. There's still a lot of real estate to express yourself.

i hate tatoos. On myself. On others, it's a personal choice. I'm dating a sweet Italian girl with tat's that made me just scratch my head but laugh as I discover the story behind each one. I mean I'm a Met fan and SHE has a met tatoo. lol! anyhow, to each his own. In life we have to respect the views of others. That is the only way we'll ever be at peace.
Plus, how boring would the world be if everyone was exactly like you?

i hate tatoos. On myself. On others, it's a personal choice. (....) In life we have to respect the views of others. That is the only way we'll ever be at peace. Plus, how boring would the world be if everyone was exactly like you?

+1 That pretty much sums up my views.

My tastes are simple: I am easily satisfied with the best - Sir Winston S. Churchill